Also: I can't dig up the specific case without doing more research than I care to do at work, but I recall a comparison of a U.S. government employee health care system (run by the federal government, natch) that was super-efficient with very little bureaucratic overhead that put private health care companies to shame. What has you so convinced that they couldn't duplicate that example writ large?

When companies merge, they usually eliminate a lot of duplicated and wasted effort, right? So one entity doing all the work would, all else being equal, be most efficient, right?

Finally, the U.S. government is the largest nonprofit organization in the world. There isn't a constant drain of money to stockholders. And the CEOs don't drain coffers further with ridiculous pay packages.

Don't think I'm unaware of the drawbacks of government control. But there is a lot of upside, too.

First off, this had nothing to do with Ron Paul whatsoever, so I'm not quite sure where you got that.

And it's not a strawman.  The government owning 100% of everything and controlling everything has been tried.  It failed.  Badly.  The people under this system were miserable and life was horrible.

I agree government shouldn't bail out airlines.  If people want to travel by air, let them pay the full costs of said travel.  It's ridiculous that someone who never flies on an airline has to subsidize someone who does so all the time.

That said, I don't see how it then follows that the government should control airlines.  That is even more ridiculous than the government subsidizing them.

Your confidence in government is exceedingly naive. I've lived in the Washington, DC area most of my life. I've seen these guys at work.  Government efficiency is an oxymoron.

You think that government-run health care is more efficient than private? Prove it. I'll be prepared to eat crow if you do, but I seriously doubt ever having to do that.

Constant drain of money to stockholders? Yeah...government does so well with its finances that it has a debt of over $9.1 trillion currently (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) that is increasing every second of every minute of every day. Yeah, sure, government has less bureaucracy and higher efficiency...except that it never has for any government program in the history of mankind. I await any proof (nonexistent though it may be) to the contrary.

Note that I am not defending CEO pay packages, some of which are ridiculous.

I say we should dump the current "Progressive tax system" and replace it with the Fair Tax. I mean I never see 100% of my earnings and that doesn't make me happy. The more I work and more I get paid the more the government takes as a PERCENTAGE! I want my whole paycheck, thank you.

Hillary and the rest of the Dems want to tax me even more... I hate the very idea of it. Anyone hear Hillary say, "I have a million ideas! America just can't afford them all." How would they help the US economy if they are taking more money away from everyone. Everyone will have less money to use for their own use.

Just research the Fair Tax before anyone starts to nay-say it... sheesh, I mean the people in this thread seem really closed-minded.

http://www.fairtax.org

I do not believe that America can elect someone that has a 50% negative rating. Nor should we elect someone who is a victim. Nor should we vote for someone whom you don't agree with on the most basic of ideas. We should vote to improve America first, and we can do that by supporting the Fair Tax.

 1. Gore

 2. Kucinich

 3. Colbert 

 4. Edwards

 5. Richardson

 6. Obama

 7. Clinton

 8. Ron Paul

 9. A hamster on drugs

 10. A republican (other than Ron Paul)

 if thats your preferred list you deserve to be smacked. Edwards? Clinton? Obama? The other democrats but Gore? wtf is wrong with you. 

 Oh well.. i guess you want the country to collapse onto itself. 

Look at Veteran's inusrance.

Heh i'll give my perfered list for the heck of it.

1. Mccain - He's about as honest as you'll get for a poltician without being crazy like Kusinich. Who everyone in his disctrict hates (i know... i live there.) but they hate republicans even more. I voted for Mccain in the primaries, and i'll vote for him again... well assuming he doesn't drop out by then.

2. Clinton - Because I think she won't remove troops from Iraq.

3. Hulk Hogan - everyone else on both sides is going to either screw up fiscal policy, foreign policy, or pull out of Iraq letting everyone murder each other even more and become the new afghanistan leading to Iraqi terrorists attacking NY in 10 years.

If that's going to happen lets at least have Hulk Hogan threaten people... and ask them what their going to do when Hulkamania runs wild on youAlso, what's up with all the republicans being behind Rudy? I mean, isn't this the party who was pissed Bill Clinton got a BJ.

Rudy is Pro gay marriage, Pro abortion, cheated on two wives, and has cross dressed on national tv atleast twice. Most hardcore republicans got pissed off against Kerry when he said he was less against gay marriage then other people because he didn't want a constitutional ammendment to make something that's already illegal super double illegal.
.

The truth is, Hillary Clinton would remove troops if she was elected, but only because it's the popular opinion.

Well, Ripper.. I don't need to post anything but I will quote your message prior to this one....

"AND I expect the liberal to start insulting me, thats is what they do when they disagree but don't have any ideas, they don't have solutions so they insult!"


So, yeah....